Jerez v. Republic of Cuba
777 F. Supp. 2d 6
D.D.C.2011Background
- Jerez sued Cuba and Cuban officials in Florida state court for torture and related injuries; Florida state court entered a Final Judgment awarding $200M in compensatory and punitive damages, grounded on TVPA and ATCA, without FSIA analysis; Florida federal court granted full faith and credit to the state judgment in a Final Default Judgment; Jerez later obtained a U.S. District Court of D.C. registration of the Florida judgment and sought a Writ of Attachment on Judgment for Cuban assets in D.C.; a Writ of Attachment was issued but later quashed due to lack of consistency with the Florida judgment; post-judgment, three motions challenged jurisdiction and the attachment, including a motion to vacate the attachment and Camara’s intervention; the Court held that the Florida judgment could not be enforced here because the Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction under FSIA; the Court also held that the trademark for Cuban cigars could not be attached or seized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court has jurisdiction to enforce the Florida judgments. | Jerez asserts FSIA exceptions applied, thus enforceable. | Movants contend Florida courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction; FSIA precludes enforcement. | Court holds Florida judgments lack subject matter jurisdiction; no enforcement. |
| Whether TRIA allows attachment of blocked assets to satisfy the Florida judgment. | TRIA permits attachment of blocked assets to satisfy judgments. | TRIA does not cover this judgment as not based on an act of terrorism or FSIA exception. | TRIA does not authorize attachment here; TRIA not satisfied. |
| Whether the seizure/attachment of the Cuban Government Seal trademark (and related IP) is permissible. | Equitable lien on IP could secure the judgment. | Trademarks cannot be transferred in gross; equitable lien inadequate or futile. | Trademark cannot be attached; equity lien not granted; IP not attachable. |
| Whether the CACR and OFAC render the attachment unenforceable absent a license. | OFAC license not shown; Attachment should proceed if permitted by law. | CACR blocks transactions involving Cuba; no license shown; attachment improper. | Attachment denied; CACR blocks enforcement absent license. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1963) (full faith and credit depends on subject-matter jurisdiction in the rendering court)
- Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co. v. N.C. Life and Acc. and Health Ins. Guaranty Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1982) (full faith and credit limited by jurisdictional basis of the foreign court)
- Weininger v. Castro, 462 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (enforcement questions involve jurisdictional chain and res judicata concerns)
- Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1989) ( FSIA principles; entire-tort rule considerations discussed)
- O'Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2009) (FSIA jurisdiction and companion tort theories in foreign-state cases)
- Chavez v. Carranza, 407 F.Supp.2d 925 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (ATCA jurisdiction limitations and foreign-state immunities)